Movie spoiler in AskMe thread

January 8, 2007 7:49 AM

Jessamyn, this comment needs to be deleted. I had flagged it earlier and was surprised that, instead of being deleted, a SPOILER warning had been placed in the thread title. There is no reason for spoilers to be in the thread. The OP is not asking about the movie - they are asking about places to discuss movies.
posted by vacapinta to Etiquette/Policy at 7:49 AM (50 comments total)

all set -- email/IM works fine for this sort of thing. I'll get that before I see MetaTalk most days.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:52 AM on January 8, 2007

Sorry about my phrasing on this question. I was being greedy. I wanted to ask a general question about forums, but also wanted to ask a specific question about the movie.

I thought it would be best to lay out the general question first, then introduce my follow up question as a comment.

I thought that the spoiler warning at the top of my comment would suffice.
posted by Telf at 8:14 AM on January 8, 2007

I understand Jesus dies at the end
posted by matteo at 8:26 AM on January 8, 2007

King Kong, too
posted by matteo at 8:26 AM on January 8, 2007

Now that's a buddy movie, matteo.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 8:28 AM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

We all die at the end.
posted by OmieWise at 8:43 AM on January 8, 2007

I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I still feel compelled to state that: movies that are ruined by spoilers weren't worth watching in the first place.

For the sake of good quality cinema, we MUST post spoilers for all movies, everywhere. This will quickly ruin inferior movies and force hollywood to move beyond the tripe it currently produces.
posted by b1tr0t at 8:50 AM on January 8, 2007 [3 favorites]

matteo: if you were really following the movie, you'd know it was Jason Voorhees who dies at the end. But then, it's easy to confuse the two, given how ol' hockey mask keeps coming back.
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:54 AM on January 8, 2007

Now that's a buddy movie, matteo.

*opens Photoshop, pastes this head on Fay Wray's*
posted by matteo at 8:55 AM on January 8, 2007

But in the sequel, Jesus comes back... for revenge!

JESUS
(kneeling over the corpse of Kong) MENDOZAAAAA!
posted by gigawhat? at 9:00 AM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

Nobody fucks with King Jesus.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:01 AM on January 8, 2007

JESUS
(kneeling over the corpse of Kong)
MENDOZAAAAA!

you know, there's a TROMA screenplay in there somewhere.
posted by matteo at 9:03 AM on January 8, 2007

all set -- email/IM works fine for this sort of thing. I'll get that before I see MetaTalk most days.

Thanks. That didnt occur to me for some reason. Will keep that in mind.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I still feel compelled to state that: movies that are ruined by spoilers weren't worth watching in the first place.

The comment was off-topic (not answering the question) and should have been deleted for that reason alone. Also, a spoiler may not "ruin" the movie but it may lower the enjoyment of that moment of revelation.

Its an etiquette issue which means its not important how you feel about it but about how others feel about it.
posted by vacapinta at 9:06 AM on January 8, 2007

movies that are ruined by spoilers weren't worth watching in the first place.

Yeah. Stupid bjorkin' Citizen Kane. And don't get me started on Hitchcock.

You're drawing a false dichotomy. There's lots of gray between (1) not affecting someone's enjoyment of a film, and (2) completely and totally "ruining" the film. And just because hack screenwriters are using surprise twists to crutch sub-par scripts, doesn't mean that surprise twists aren't a valid tool in creating a brilliant film.
posted by cribcage at 9:15 AM on January 8, 2007

Ditto what cribcage said.
posted by Bookhouse at 9:42 AM on January 8, 2007

That "Hamlet" guy?
Toast.
Just saved you three hours and a lifetime of introspection.
posted by Dizzy at 10:40 AM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

But please tell me nothing bad happens to Rosencranz and Gildenstern.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:00 PM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

Who?
posted by cribcage at 12:12 PM on January 8, 2007

They got their own sequel. No not that one - I'm talkin' 'bout Strange Brew.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:19 PM on January 8, 2007

My momma knows Tom Stoppard's momma and she is telling and you're all gonna be grounded.
posted by Dizzy at 12:22 PM on January 8, 2007

b1tr0t writes "I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I still feel compelled to state that: movies that are ruined by spoilers weren't worth watching in the first place."

A question to all the people who feel this way and are sports fans. Do you think the same applies to sporting contests. Would you enjoy the world series in the same way if you first read a score sheet of all the games?
posted by Mitheral at 12:34 PM on January 8, 2007

Caring about spoilers is really stupid. All of the best stories of all time aren't spoiled a whit.

Winston gets tortured with rats and turns in Julia, and a boot stamps on a human face forever! Algernon dies, and so does Charlie! They pretty much all die in the end!

b1tr0t writ: For the sake of good quality cinema, we MUST post spoilers for all movies, everywhere. This will quickly ruin inferior movies and force hollywood to move beyond the tripe it currently produces.

EXACTLY. Dude, where's your enlistment office? I want to join your army.

vacapinta wraught: Its an etiquette issue which means its not important how you feel about it but about how others feel about it.

By your own reckoning, you should be most concerned about how I feel about your missing apostrophe. I feel terrible. The emotional discomfort and lack of enjoyment is so profound! Woe!

Also, consider b1tr0t's very valid point, which is that the rest of us are all suffering because Hollywood produces a never ending stream of rancid, creamy, easily digestible poop.

Part of the reason for this never-ending river of shit is because some people care about secret insignificant plot twists as story mechanisms, rather than relying on a firm foundation of strong storytelling.

Therefore: PLEASE STOP CARING, KTHX. That girl? She's a dude. Snape killed Dumbledore. He dies, she dies, everyone dies. THE CHILDREN OF MEN ALL DIE.*

(*Actually, I have no idea. I'm guessing. I'M GUESSING BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE OF PREVIOUS STORIES AND THE TECHNIQUES OF STRONG STORY-TELLING. I hear it's really good, though. But I bet they all die.)
posted by loquacious at 1:18 PM on January 8, 2007

Would you enjoy the world series in the same way if you first read a score sheet of all the games?

Absolutely. Both are pretty much like waterboarding.
posted by GuyZero at 1:26 PM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

A question to all the people who feel this way and are sports fans. Do you think the same applies to sporting contests. Would you enjoy the world series in the same way if you first read a score sheet of all the games?

Me? I'd find that immensely more enjoyable. Oh, but I hate baseball. Fans, you said. Oh.

Why do sports fans watch replays of games, or highlight reels?

How often do those highlight reels contain just the end score and not all the significant plays within?

Besides, you're comparing an apple to, like, a dragonfruit. A well construct, hand-crafted, intentful tale of fiction hasvery little in common with the chaotic runnings of a baseball game.

Considering what we've all been exposed to recently in print, screen and film I can fully understand how you might be confused, but the two things really are quite drastically different.
posted by loquacious at 1:27 PM on January 8, 2007

By your own reckoning, you should be most concerned about how I feel about your missing apostrophe.

Oh, I am. I apologize for that.
posted by vacapinta at 1:27 PM on January 8, 2007

I just saw Children of Men and had a few questions.

- She gets eaten by sharks.
- No, that wasn't really Michael Caine (right?).
- Yes, it fucking sucked as much as you thought.
posted by cillit bang at 1:35 PM on January 8, 2007

Yes, it fucking sucked as much as you thought.

This is why I go to the Internets so often. As soon as I express an opinion, I encounter an angry opposing opinion almost instantly. It keeps me grounded.
posted by mullacc at 1:45 PM on January 8, 2007

FADE IN

SCENE: Helicopter view of New York at night.

In a world gone horribly wrong...

SCENE: Woman being stuffed in backseat of car, screaming.

JESUS: Maggie, NOOOO!!!

one Son of man...

SCENE: Police headquarters.

JESUS: Do not think that I came to abolish the Law-
STUPID CAPTAIN: Stop right there, Big J. You're a damn good cop, but I've had it up to here with you. Your gun and your badge, now.

and one streetwise monkey...

SCENE: Empire State building.

KONG: RAAAAAWWWWRRR!

must overcome each other's differences...

SCENE: A seedy garden at midnight.

PETER: You said midnight, man. But I said come alone! Who the hell is this big ape?!
JESUS: Peter! Put it down! Put down the gun, man. I'm here, I'm-
KONG: RAAAAAWWWWRRR!
JESUS: Kong, no! Back off, man! Damn!

to save the things they love...

SCENE: Empire State building.

KONG: RAAAAAWWWWRRR!

and bring justice to the wicked.

JESUS: Let him who has no sword... cop a Glock, BIZOTCH.
JESUS: HUNF HUNF HUNF.

This summer, see what happens when the eighth wonder of the world and the greatest story ever told collide in the Big Apple.

FLASH on screen:
Queens King of King's Kong
July 2007

KONG: RAAAAAWWWWRRR!

FADE OUT

(Yes I know King Kong is an ape not a monkey so just shut up about it already damn.)
posted by cog_nate at 1:47 PM on January 8, 2007

Also, consider b1tr0t's very valid point, which is that the rest of us are all suffering because Hollywood produces a never ending stream of rancid, creamy, easily digestible poop.

Not only do we suffer from the extremely poor quality of Hollywood's output, but it is just as difficult to find an interesting discussion discussion of a film. Everyone is so worried about spoiling the ending for people who have not yet seen it that they begin to believe that the ending actually does matter. No one really digs into films because doing so would necessarily expose spoiler elements. Film then becomes only slightly more entertaining than sports.
posted by b1tr0t at 1:48 PM on January 8, 2007

BIBLE SPOILER:

.
.
.
.
.



THREE DAYS LATER DUDE JUST SHOWS UP OUT OF THE BLUE
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:50 PM on January 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

No one really digs into films because doing so would necessarily expose spoiler elements.

This is actually a valid point and I am currently reconsidering my position.
posted by vacapinta at 1:52 PM on January 8, 2007

Sled.
posted by fixedgear at 1:58 PM on January 8, 2007

No one really digs into films because doing so would necessarily expose spoiler elements.

And this is solved by there being an unspoken time-limit on how long something can be a spoiler. Anyone who's still complaining about having Citizen Kane spoiled needs to get over it. But that doesn't mean that there isn't real pleasure in being surprised during a movie, or at least working something out for yourself. Surely there was some serious emotion to be had for people who got to find out that Luke was Darth Vader's son by watching the movie, instead of being told. That doesn't make Empire a shit film.

While a great movie (or play or book) will withstand multiple viewings, it doesn't mean that there's no pleasure in discovery. It's why people often wish that they could see a movie again for the first time.
posted by Bookhouse at 2:17 PM on January 8, 2007

Surely there was some serious emotion to be had for people who got to find out that Luke was Darth Vader's son by watching the movie, instead of being told. That doesn't make Empire a shit film.

Of course not. It's the backstory and plot leading up to that that makes it a shit film.

OH ICE BURN
posted by loquacious at 2:54 PM on January 8, 2007

Do you find that the pleasure of discovering that Vader is Luke's father exceed that of discussing how Empire relates to universal mythic archetypes?

If you can suspend your disbelief enough to relate to a guy flying around in space, why can't you suppress the knowledge that Vader is Luke's dad when you re-watch the film?
posted by b1tr0t at 2:55 PM on January 8, 2007

Do you find that the pleasure of discovering that Vader is Luke's father exceed that of discussing how Empire relates to universal mythic archetypes?

But isn't there room for both? Obviously, now we can discuss Star Wars, and if someone stumbles on to the conversation, well, too bad. But if I met someone who somehow had never seen the original trilogy and yet wanted to, I wouldn't say, "by the way, Luke is Vader's son" as I handed over the DVDs. We could discuss the movie later.

If you can suspend your disbelief enough to relate to a guy flying around in space, why can't you suppress the knowledge that Vader is Luke's dad when you re-watch the film?

Those are two different modes of thought. Suspension of disbelief is about accepting the rules of the fictional universe, not wiping your mind clean of past knowledge. It's not me forgetting that in space there is no noise. It's about me accepting that in that universe, there is noise in space. Leastways, that's how I see it.
posted by Bookhouse at 3:09 PM on January 8, 2007

"Do you find that the pleasure of discovering that Vader is Luke's father exceed that of discussing how Empire relates to universal mythic archetypes?"

Do you really have many meaningful discussions about how Empire relates to universal mythic archetypes with people who haven't even seen the movie? Didn't think so. It's a strawman argument. Announce your intent to discuss spoilers ahead of time to weed out the people who have an incomplete context for the conversation (at best), and go on with your discussion. You can flog the last ounce of pleasure out of that horse until the day you die, but the joy of discovery is a one-time-only affair.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:23 PM on January 8, 2007

Perhaps those not interested in knowing key plot points of certain movies could avoid reading articles, posts, or comments about said movie, hmmm?

Much like Goatse.cx, somethings, once seen, cannot be UNSEEN, nevertheless, it does not destroy our ability to see and enjoy other things. (Please note, I am making reference to spoilers)
posted by blue_beetle at 3:28 PM on January 8, 2007

Well, blue_beetle, as a matter of fact I do try to avoid obvious conversations about movies I haven't seen yet. But that doesn't stop self-important gasbags from dropping spoilers into completely unrelated threads just because they can. Then trying to justify it with some hypothetical high-minded discussion that wasn't actually taking place. This thread being a perfect example, in fact. Spoilertron already saw the movie? Good for you, peaches. Comic-book Guy would be so proud of you.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:47 PM on January 8, 2007

Do you really have many meaningful discussions about how Empire relates to universal mythic archetypes with people who haven't even seen the movie?

No, but I might have a meaningful discussion about how various movies relate to universal mythic archetypes without stopping every five minutes to poll everyone in the room (and anyone who might happen by in the next five minutes) about what movies they have or haven't seen. If someone mentions they don't want to know, I'll stop, and I do ask about things in current release; but there comes a point where catering to potential spoilerphobia cripples conversation.
posted by Karmakaze at 3:48 PM on January 8, 2007

"If someone mentions they don't want to know, I'll stop, and I do ask about things in current release; but there comes a point where catering to potential spoilerphobia cripples conversation."

That's an entirely reasonable policy.

b1tr0t, on the other hand was openly advocating posting spoilers for the stated purpose of ruiing the movies for anyone who hadn't seen them: "For the sake of good quality cinema, we MUST post spoilers for all movies, everywhere. This will quickly ruin inferior movies and force hollywood to move beyond the tripe it currently produces."

Even assuming a measure of hyperbole in his/her statement, his/her later arguments amount to "discovery is of lesser value than reflection." I say that's not his/her call to make. And that's the absolute nicest way I can bring myself to say it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:54 PM on January 8, 2007

/where ruiing=ruining
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:55 PM on January 8, 2007

blue_beetle writes "Perhaps those not interested in knowing key plot points of certain movies could avoid reading articles, posts, or comments about said movie, hmmm?"

Yep, but the AskMe that triggered this had the spoiler come out of left field. A thread on where to discuss movies doesn't imply spoilers will be discussed.
posted by Mitheral at 3:57 PM on January 8, 2007

Wait, OK, is this thread about my comment? Because when I saw that thread, it had a specific question about the movie. It looks different now, mostly because the specific question has been removed. I answered the question the OP asked (offering only my opinion because that's more or less what he was asking for), and I did my best to answer the other question as well. I don't remember anything particularly spoilerish in my answer, but now I'm paranoid that I accidentally inspired a 40+ comment long metatalk post. Unless this is about a completely different post I didn't see, and my answer got deleted because it didn't make sense with the edited question. Or maybe I've lost my mind.
posted by MadamM at 10:16 PM on January 8, 2007

I didn't edit the question (possibly matt did? I doubt it) but I did remove your answer. Don't worry about it. The OP was a little unclear whether they wanted just links to movie-discussion sites or discussion in the thread itself and people are a little, um, chatty when the topic of spoilers comes up.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:27 PM on January 8, 2007

Oh, ok. Huh. When I saw the question I swear it had a specific question about the movie (about the significance of a certain character who wasn't particularly important to the plot) and so I talked a little bit about that character. Very odd; I doubt I would make up a question spontaneously. Now I really feel like I lost my mind. Hopefully telf actually did ask the question I answered; otherwise I'll be concerned. Sorry for the completely inadvertent spoilering, btw- I had no idea even talking about fairly unimportant details of a movie could ruin it for people.
posted by MadamM at 6:49 PM on January 9, 2007

MadamM,

My bad, I did ask a specific question question. You're not going nuts.
posted by Telf at 7:58 PM on January 9, 2007

MadamM,

Incidentally, I'd still like to hear other people's take on my original question.

My email should be in my profile if you don't mind throwing out some ideas.
posted by Telf at 8:01 PM on January 9, 2007

I read the thread in question when MadamM's post was still there, and I had no idea what she meant. I'm feeling rather vague now.

Telf, I can't see your email in your profile, but I'd be happy to chat about my take on the movie with you.
posted by goshling at 3:39 AM on January 11, 2007

telf at ufl dot edu
posted by Telf at 12:26 PM on January 11, 2007